battlefieldfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:War of 2014
Seperating the Multiplayer War from the Singleplayer. (Spoiler) If you haven't finished the campaign, don't read this. If you have finished, you'd notice that the war between Russia and America was prevented, but the multiplayer contradicts this, with the Russian Federation and United States clearly being at war, and Paris still being intact. So either the multiplayer is a parrallel universe, or the mutliplayer battles are simply random battles that don't have any meaning whatsoever. I suggest that we seperate the multiplayer battles from this page and name the pages Global Crisis of 2014 and Third Russo-American War. Or just not give the multiplayer maps a war page at all, since non of them seem to have any plot or meaning. Thoughts? :Defo not the "Third Russo-American War", because that would imply that there were Russo-American wars before 2014. Remember that this isn't the Bad Company spinoff series, this is core BF, and directly related to Battlefield 2 -- this is the first Russo-American war in core Battlefield. :And I haven't beat the game yet, but isn't it possible that Russia and America still went to war? Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 16:32, October 26, 2011 (UTC) ::I don't think it's possible to connect the two together, it's heavily implied that Russia and America didn't go to war. Not to mention Op Metro and Seine Crossing both still wouldn't make sense even if the war still happened. :::It may be heavily implied, but heavy implication really means nothing without solid, empirical evidence. What we know is what the developers give us, until they give us something else. :::Either way, I whole-heartedly oppose a rename to 'Third' Russo-American war, given that there never was a 'first' or 'second' Russo-American war in BF1942 or BF2. Maybe 'Russo-American War (BF3)'. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 16:48, October 26, 2011 (UTC) Okay, having just finished the game, I can say there's really no inference that a war was averted. Not in the actions nor dialogue. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 22:09, October 27, 2011 (UTC) :Oh wow, I was actually just thinking about this after re-reading the article. Was about to post something about this, then I realized this was brought up a few months ago. :**WARNING: THEORY - THIS IS LIKELY TO BE COMPLETE SHENANIGANS** :Anyways, its possible that even though Blackburn found the nuke in NY, it could have been covered up by the CIA and the war with Russia and the US went on as it was planned. :That would explain Op Metro/Seine Crossing, as Russia - since they seemed to have much of Europe by the end of the Second Russo-American War - would be able to invade France easily, despite it being nuked (maybe was before nuke went off, or nuke was to end US involvement in Europe). :Plus the two already engaged in Rock and a Hard Place, most likely dragging them closer to full scale conflict in Iran, since the US crushed the PLR/IRIA in Op Swordbreaker and Op Guillotine. :Crazy, yes. But it makes sense to me. :**END THEORY** : 05:40, December 26, 2011 (UTC) ::Again, stop confusing the Bad Company universe with the core universe. There WAS no Russo-American war, there was only the Global War of 2007. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 05:58, December 26, 2011 (UTC) :::Hey, it was just a theory. And I like to think the two universes intertwine. Yeah, the BC games are spin-offs, but they just have a different "story" than the core games. Kinda like showing a different side to the conflict(s) in the BF world. 06:01, December 26, 2011 (UTC) ::::Actually thinking about this a bit more, there are really three separate scenes that go on in Paris that fucks this all up. ::::1. The Singleplayer Campaign - GRU finds out about nuke in Paris, try to prevent, fail, 80,000 people die. ::::2. The Co-op Campaign - Snake 6-6 prevents a nuclear strike in the EURONEXT building and deals with hostages and such in Paris. ::::3. Multiplayer - The US and Russia battle it out in the subway and on the streets of Paris. ::::Really fucks over everything. Unless the Co-op happens first, then the multiplayer, then the singleplayer. But then this gets fuzzy with Rock And A Hard Place/Kaffarov, where Russia/US clash. Unless they go to war directly after that, then it gets really dicey. 06:12, December 26, 2011 (UTC) ::::Just because you personally like to think the universes intertwine doesn't mean we should make it seem as thus here; BFBC and BC2 are direct sequels of the same spin-off, BF2/BF3 are direct sequels of the core branch -- the two should be treated as such and, because of BF:NOT, we should go no further with the speculation. Йура15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 17:42, December 26, 2011 (UTC) :::::Fair enough, but we should at least try to make some sense of BF3's Global War and how the three game modes intertwine. This ain't no Ocarina of time with split timelines. BFBC can be separate from the core games, but BF3 shouldn't be responsible for multiple endings of the war. 19:35, December 26, 2011 (UTC) My Thoughts I think that the multiplayer is based off of the fact that despite Blackburn's actions, the U.S. thinks the Russians are behind the nukes. And because the U.S. was in Iran, they fighting between the U.S. and Russians takes place there. But the fact that there is combat in Paris may be because it was only a portable nuke, not a full scale one, which means that fighting could take place there. Just look in the sky in Seine Crossing, it kind of looks like the sky in the aftermath picture shown to Blackburn. Or it may simply be because the developers wanted variety to the maps, so they did something that doesn't fully make sense, but their excuse for making maps like this is simply the fact that is in singleplayer. Just my thoughts. The biggest problem with Seine Crossing is that it is located at ground zero, yet no signs of a nuclear attack can be seen anywhere. Hasn't this been discussed to death before? Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 23:11, July 21, 2012 (UTC) Is it entirely possible that the big building in Seine Crossing isn't actually the EuroNext exchange? If so, it could easily mean Seine crossing is elsewhere in Paris. As Yuri has said before somewhere else, it's a dirty bomb, not a Tsar Bomba, so not all of Paris would've been eradicated. As for Co-op, I think it's safe to say that the Co-op is a completely separate campaign and storyline from the main campaign. On another note, should we list Kaffarov's PMC/Security/whatever in the Combatants section (Most likely in the middle column with the PLR), and add Amir Kaffarov as a commander? '' Bumblebeeprime09 Continental '' 23:55, July 25, 2012 (UTC) : It's completely possible that the SP, Coop and MP take place in different, yet mildly similar universes, and are somehow connected. Also, a suitcase nuke is still a nuke - a dirty bomb is a radiation-dispersing conventional bomb. Anyway, yeah I agree on the PMCs, since they are a unique force in that they use Western weaponry, speak Russian and have their own motives (money), making them unique from any other faction in the conflict. Th3 razor (talk) 00:06, July 26, 2012 (UTC) ::You're completely off about the "suitcase nuke". Realistically, regardless of the semantics, any weapon that has a ground detonation will NEVER be as strong or have as much of an effective radius as an airburst. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 00:17, July 26, 2012 (UTC) ::::Whatever. Also, airburst detonations are cleaner in terms of fallout. Anyway, what about the PMCs? Should somebody add them or not? And another thing: Should the civilians get their own tab for casualties? It seems kind of odd to group them with combatant factions. Th3 razor (talk) 00:35, July 26, 2012 (UTC) Page renaming. Wasn't the old name correct? It fitted nicely with the events in the game, and, including the multiplayer aspect, was indeed a major conflict that took place in various parts of the world (parts in and out of Iran, parts of Iraq, Paris, NYC, the Pacific, Russia). I mean, despite the vague storyline connection to the MP, it is referenced that Russia was, in one way or another, blamed for Solomon's plot. Dima, when talking to Blackburn, wanted to prevent a conflict between their nations, which failed, but were able to stop Solomon's plans (Dima's epilogue). The title "Iranian-American War" does not capture the BF3 conflict in its entirety (the subsections of the article include parts of other places of the game as well) and I understand that it isn't global in the literal sense, but it is, no doubt, expansive. '' [[User:PLR Soldier|'PLR Soldier']][[user talk:PLR Soldier|'Talk']] '' 09:50, June 14, 2013 (UTC) :The only belligerents were the USA and Iran. Hell, in Rock and a Hard Place, Cole even says that their fighting against the VDV wasn't war. Furthermore, go take a look at Second Russo-American War. That war is more deserving of being called a global war, because Russia was fighting seemingly everyone and their mother; this war was a very localized conflict with one major and a few minor events outside the proper war zone. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 20:03, June 14, 2013 (UTC) :Russia became a belligerent as soon as it was blamed (Agent Gordon seems absolutely positive that it is the Russians who nuked Paris, and that Blackburn was tricked by Dima). This is the reason why the MP is what it is. I see your point on the global thing. Though, in the BF2 article, its conflict mentioned as a global war, despite the fact that it, too, takes place in 3-4 countries (China, parts of Middle East, Eastern US, Pacific). This name doesn't capture the entirety of it, even excluding the MP element of BF3 altogether. '' [[User:PLR Soldier|'PLR Soldier']][[user talk:PLR Soldier|'Talk']] '' 02:56, June 15, 2013 (UTC) ::As much as I agree that what you're saying is indeed the most likely scenario, there is also absolutely no solid proof that the MP and SP are directly related. And further, why on earth would the US attack Russia if Paris got nuked, and why would the main war occur on Iran's soil rather than in eastern Europe between the EU and Russia? The Sino-American War page probably ought to be renamed, honestly, since most of the maps feature the MEC rather than China, but that was closer to having a global war than this war was. ::And I think DICE was just being lazy, since the assets for both the US and RU were already in place for a multiplayer confrontation between them, whereas they didn't have assets for Iran in place for it. 03:00, June 15, 2013 (UTC) ::Reason for US attacking Russia: as a NATO ally, I would presume, but then that ties into the MP and SP missing proof. So, I guess yeah, leave it as it is. '' [[User:PLR Soldier|'PLR Soldier']][[user talk:PLR Soldier|'Talk']] '' 03:28, June 15, 2013 (UTC) I really do think we should go for PLR's idea. I mean WW2 was a global war yet it did not include Every single country. That concept was similar with this page. -- awyman13 {Talk}' { }' 03:40, June 15, 2013 (UTC) :There were 36 countries involved in WW2 (at a time when there were only around a hundred countries in total) -- compared to a maximum of four in BF3. Further, WW2 was a truly global conflict -- there were combatants from every corner of the earth, from almost every single sovereign state on earth, with combat on pretty much every continent. We're not going back to Global War because that would be misinformation; the wars depicted in BC2 could be considered global, and hell even BF2's war might qualify for that nomenclature, but not a regional conflict like that. 05:25, June 15, 2013 (UTC) :Another suggestion: maybe Remove "Global" and just refer to it as "War of 2014"? This allows for more than the two named belligerents in the current name. Just an idea. '' [[User:PLR Soldier|'PLR Soldier']][[user talk:PLR Soldier|'Talk']] '' 05:30, June 15, 2013 (UTC) ::The name itself doesn't preclude other belligerents, and as I had said, the only two confirmed belligerents in open warfare were the US and Iran. For all we know, those Russians were nothing more than a bunch of volunteer units. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 05:39, June 15, 2013 (UTC) ::After giving it some thought, I have come up with another name: PLR Conflict. It fits the whole situation better, as they are the main combatants the player faces, whether via USMC or Russian GRU. If you approve, I will go ahead with the change. '' [[User:PLR Soldier|'PLR Soldier']][[user talk:PLR Soldier|'Talk']] '' 17:54, June 29, 2013 (UTC) ::::I think 'The Iranian Conflict' would work too, since it denotes the main location (Iran), without implying any specific belligerents other than Iran itself. Sort of like the 'Kazakh Conflict', which is what we called the conflict in BF2:MC last time I checked the page (Which was months ago, it may have changed). BBP09 03:22, July 3, 2013 (UTC) ::::That would, however, the MP of BF2: MC is proven to not be tied to the single player, where the Kazakh Conflict takes place. Not to mention the countless other locations set in both SP and MP of BF3 (France, Iraq, Russia, Persian Gulf states, USA) aside from Iran. I realize the main location is Iran, but your argument is that of the main location as the name of the conflict, which I stated to be separate from SP and MP in BF2: MC, which is the main issue here (whether or not SP and MP are tied, hence the naming issue). Be sure to comment on the forum regarding your thoughts, though. '' [[User:PLR Soldier|'PLR Soldier']][[user talk:PLR Soldier|'Talk']] '' 03:32, July 3, 2013 (UTC) The new name is godawful and I can't approve of it. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 10:45, July 7, 2013 (UTC) :Yes I agree. War of 2020 is also bad. -- '' awyman13'' Talk ' 16:45, July 7, 2013 (UTC) Sigh, okay. War of 2020 is a placeholder name. I'll change this one back momentarily (on mobile atm). '' [[User:PLR Soldier|'PLR Soldier]][[user talk:PLR Soldier|'Talk']] '' 17:59, July 7, 2013 (UTC) "Palov"? Who is "Director Palov?" He's listed as a leader for Russia, but where is he mentioned in BF3? Is he in the credits or something? Or did some unknowing anon do that? I'm not familiar with Russia's government, and I can't find anything just from 'Palov.' JackHags.(talk) 03:57, August 13, 2013 (UTC) Finally found it. It was done by Zephalian on December 29, 2011. JackHags.(talk) 04:04, August 13, 2013 (UTC) : He was a character from the book, head of GRU, I think. '' [[User:PLR Soldier|'PLR Soldier']][[user talk:PLR Soldier|'Talk']] '' 11:31, August 13, 2013 (UTC) Same War in BF4 We're getting increasing proof that it and the War of 2020 are the same war. Characters from BF3 are return as well as factions and mentioned events. -- '' awyman13'' 'Talk ' 21:35, October 31, 2013 (UTC) Wpperez49 (talk) 16:56, May 31, 2014 (UTC) Okay , this might be a little crazy but the mutiplayer has almost no story at all and i want to give it story . Kinda like the bf2 war page . I need help with this . A good starting point would be karhg island purely because of geography. Also i think bf3 and the dlcs dont happen in dlc release order .Like Kharg island then Bandar desert.